Is technical proficiency a hinderance

[Illastrat No.3427299]

First off, I am always trying to improve the technical aspects of my art. But, the more I research, the more I see it’s not necessary. Van Gogh, Cezanne, and Gauguin were non technical self taught artists. They had a voice. I know y’all talk about fundies but was do u mean. Seems like academic art is too one dimensional.

[Anonymous No.3427332]

Most of the people here want to do anime or concept art, not fine art. There isn’t much room for going off model or lacking perspective.

[Illastrat No.3427334]

I see

[Anonymous No.3427340]

>>3427332
Its a pain in the ass really.
I always enjoyed making fine art and abstract paintings but the fact that no one would really care to buy them in the modern age is a bit of a downer. I never cared much for it but anytime I've had a go at making that sort of stuff, I seem to impress a lot of people, even though its not the audience I'm targetting myself towards.

[Illastrat No.3427353]

>>3427340
Same boat. I have the educational background to do academic art, but I perfect abstraction. People on this site take it as if I don’t know fundies. I can out draw ANYONE...just about

[Anonymous No.3427854]

>>3427299
All academic art disciplines have fundamentals to provide complete noobs with no creative background but have the desire, a chance to have an intellectual understanding of what to expect from that discipline. What the prospective artist does with that intellectual understanding of the fundies will be determined by how much effort is put in actual practice.

COOKS: must understand how to add basic ingredients and then know the basics of how to stir, pound, or manipulate those ingredients by hand in order to make that dish.

DANCERS: must know the basics of foot/ arm/ head/ torso movements to create art that expresses.

MUSICIANS: start off first understanding the basics of simple notes. Then scale.

PAINTERS, ILLUSTRATORS, ETC:
learn how to put a series of lines and planes into a comprehensive and gestalt visual.

Most with no creative background make the effort to take on fundies as a psychological assurance of what they're getting into.

However, there are some who don't require it and can get by. While this is possible, it is also a very small percentage of prospective artists who can do that confidently. These are either prodigies or people with a Right-Side Dominant Brain that allows them an innate gift to create.

[Anonymous No.3427868]

>>3427299
don't think cezanne was self taught, anyway the post-impressionists were definitely coming at art from a technical standpoint. they weren't just amateurs fucking around trying to express themselves or some shit. they had a specific goal of turning impressionism into something people could actually give a shit about.

if you paint a bunch of fruit in blocks of bright colour you aren't the same as cezanne. if you rip off starry starry night you aren't van gogh. you need to have well defined aesthetic (or conceptual) goals if you want to 'have a voice.'

[Anonymous No.3427882]

was he right /ic/?

[Anonymous No.3427899]

>>3427882
I mean, realism has outlived every other art movement and is still practiced today. Also, I think it's kind of the opposite of what that guy is saying. When nature and the simple beauty of things becomes boring to people and artists basically become attention whores, desperately trying to shock, subvert expectations and disgust people with their "art", that's the sign of a decadent society.

[Anonymous No.3427901]

I can't deal with the delusion of grandeur of OP man. Goddamn.

[Anonymous No.3427906]

It's just as important to learn as it is to create. There are people who draw every day and they do not improve because they do not push themselves and do not learn. You don't have to go to art school, but you need to learn how to push your boundaries. The greats who have accomplished without technical proficiency are the exceptions, not the rule. Do you have any reason to believe you are special? Learn how to draw a circle before you try to draw the world you self righteous idiot.

[Anonymous No.3427908]

The way u see it, the fundies are gonna help you cultivate a style much easier, when you know what you're doing you have complete freedom in a way. When you don't know the fundies, you still have the freedom to create what you want, but you won't be able to do the same as someone who does.

[Anonymous No.3427936]

>>3427882
i agree with his thoughts, subjectively. i like art when it has opinions about the world.

>>3427901
dis

[Anonymous No.3429072]

>>3427299
technical skills enable the range of expression you are capable. you need only as much as you think you do. and if you're going the modern route that level is very minimal as the initial force behind impressionism was to bring the natural style of japanese art to europe and move away from perversions like mastery. Monet couldn't even draw.

>>3427899
realism isn't really an art movement. everyone has to do it to study at some point and as soon as their work gains significance they're already working within a style.

>When nature and the simple beauty of things becomes boring to people and artists basically become attention whores
beauty alone is boring as hell. what do you do with it? you can't intellectualize about it. you can't play with it. all you can do is masturbate to it. and btw, you have a painfully narrow perspective of things.

[Anonymous No.3429138]

>>3429072
>what do you do with it? you can't intellectualize about it. you can't play with it

That’s laughable bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3429144]

>Is technical proficiency a hinderance

not for you, illistrat

[Anonymous No.3429146]

>>3429138
show us your intellectual musings on beauty. i bet you can't do it without jerking yourself off in some way.

[Anonymous No.3429165]

>>3427353
Prove it, post your last cast drawing

[Anonymous No.3429175]

>>3429146
You’re one to talk about masturbation, you pretentious wannabe academic. Being a contrarian just makes you edgy, it doesn’t make you smart.

[Anonymous No.3429176]

>>3427882
He mentions perfection a lot and associates it with ugliness. Perfection is supposed to be an end goal and most people don't care if something is almost perfect. If something is perfect enough, it might as well be perfect. So if the pursuit of perfection gets to a point where the average Joe cannot tell the difference between improvements, then it might just be ugly. If that's the case, then it's about stagnation in the accessibility of your work. As long as each new thing you create feels "stronger" in an obvious (but not necessarily describable) way, then it shouldn't be ugly.
...I don't know what brought this on, sorry.

[Anonymous No.3429179]

>>3429175
so you have nothing to show and instead decided to act like a faggot and lash out at people. okay. glad we've established you have nothing to offer.

[Anonymous No.3429194]

>>3429146
Can I try? When something is beautiful, it means it is satisfying. How something satisfies and what something satisfies can be played with.
>Is Snickers beautiful?
I think art strives to satisfy greater needs, like curiosity or spiritual yearning or needs we don't even have a name for. Perhaps a starving man might see beauty in a chocolate bar, it depends on what needs an individual prioritizes.

[Anonymous No.3429202]

>>3429194
what you're describing is subjective beauty, which can be anything. people find beauty everywhere, even in conventional ugliness. it's not the same thing being argued about.

[Anonymous No.3429312]

>>3429072
>beauty alone is boring as hell. what do you do with it? you can't intellectualize about it. you can't play with it. all you can do is masturbate to it.

you have a painfully narrow perspective of things.

[Anonymous No.3429314]

>>3429312
>>3429146
>>3429179
stay mad retard.

[Illastrat No.3429674]

>>3429202
Non technical art can be beautiful.

[Anonymous No.3429676]

>>3429202
objective beauty is a minefield to navigate
like someone heard "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and straight up said "no, that's wrong"

[Anonymous No.3430825]

[Anonymous No.3430829]

dunno, i think you're wrong

i think academic art is the best way to improve technically, and from that point you can let your creativity flow in so many more ways, because you can basically do anything and still make it look good.

[Anonymous No.3430832]

>>3429676
the thing is there are things that are """almost""" ubiquitous in terms of what's aesthetically pleasing.

it's why things like colour theory exist

[Anonymous No.3430849]

>>3430825
This isn’t real

[Anonymous No.3431162]

>>3430849
how so?

[Anonymous No.3431401]

>>3427882
>arrival of realism coincided with decadence

Decadence is the result of advances in technology and increases in wealth that allows for more free time to be devoted to leisurely and philosophical pursuits. Art is one of those pursuits. So is art criticism and being fat.